Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source3 min read

Qistas: A Pre-Registered, Portable Protocol for Fairness Evaluation of Large Language Models

Summary

Qistas is a pre-registered, portable fairness evaluation protocol instantiated first for Iraq. It measures only procedural symmetry, differential refusal, stereotype reliance, and terminological framing, using paired designs and rigorous statistics. A semantic review of a 58-item seed bank found 24 of 25 template groups failed at least one check, exposing common hazards in counterfactual fairness benchmarks.

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Nawar S. Alseelawi, Mustafa S. Aljumaily
Qistas: A Pre-Registered, Portable Protocol for Fairness Evaluation of Large Language Models
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 29 Oct 2026]

Title:Qistas: A Pre-Registered, Portable Protocol for Fairness Evaluation of Large Language Models

View a PDF of the paper titled Qistas: A Pre-Registered, Portable Protocol for Fairness Evaluation of Large Language Models, by Nawar S. Alseelawi and 1 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Fairness benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) are overwhelmingly English-born and American in their social categories; translated versions carry those categories into societies where they do not apply, and almost none fix their hypotheses before the models are run. We present Qistas (Arabic qistas, "the just balance"), a protocol for evaluating how LLMs treat the social, confessional, and regional constituencies of a society, portable across countries and instantiated first for Iraq. In its pilot form it measures only what needs no verdict on contested truth: procedural symmetry across matched counterfactual pairs, differential refusal, stereotype reliance under ambiguity, and terminological framing of documented events. Every measurement is paired by construction and analysed with paired machinery (sign-flip permutation tests, exact McNemar tests, template-clustered bootstrap intervals, Holm-corrected families), with a power analysis that states, before any data exist, the smallest effect each axis can detect after the design effect of template clustering. We release the authoring apparatus (a pruned 3x5 taxonomy with four cells closed by design, per-type checklists, a cumulative rulings log, a structural audit, and a human review notebook) and report its first field test: a semantic review of a 58-item seed bank in which 24 of 25 template groups failed at least one check. The defect patterns it exposed (evaluation criteria leaking into prompts, token-level swaps that break Arabic agreement, epistemically unbalanced pairs, single-theme refusal probes, unwritten dialect twins counted as coverage) are, we argue, general hazards of counterfactual fairness benchmarks. This is a protocol paper, not a results paper: no model has been evaluated, and the accompanying pre-registration commits the hypotheses, metrics, exclusion rules, and analysis plan that the pilot will follow.

Comments: 19 pages, 1 figure, 5 tables. Protocol paper; no model results. Pre-registration: this https URL. Reference implementation: this https URL

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computers and Society (cs.CY)

Cite as: arXiv:2610.40893 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.40893v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.40893

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Nawar Alseelawi [view email] [v1] Thu, 29 Oct 2026 19:14:07 UTC (901 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Qistas: A Pre-Registered, Portable Protocol for Fairness Evaluation of Large Language Models, by Nawar S. Alseelawi and 1 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs cs.CY

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

InvestorsAdvanced

Key points

  • Qistas is a pre-registered protocol that fixes hypotheses, metrics, and analysis plans before any model is run.
  • It measures only aspects that require no verdict on contested truth: procedural symmetry, differential refusal, stereotype reliance under ambiguity, and terminological framing.
  • In a pilot semantic review of a 58-item seed bank, 24 of 25 template groups failed at least one check, revealing defects like evaluation criteria leaking into prompts and Arabic agreement issues.
  • This is a protocol paper with no model results, but it releases the authoring apparatus and pre-registration materials.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.